Monday, March 12, 2007

Addison, CrimeStoppers, and Duke

In late March and early April, Cpl. David Addison was a ubiquitous presence in coverage of the lacrosse case.

“You are looking at one victim brutally raped. If that was someone else’s daughter, child, I don’t think 46 (tests) would be a large enough number to figure out exactly who did it.” (WRAL, March 24)

“Addison said police approached the lacrosse team with the five-page search warrant on March 16, but that all of the members refused to cooperate with the investigation.” (Herald-Sun, March 25)

“We’re asking someone from the lacrosse team to step forward . . . We will be relentless in finding out who committed this crime.” (N&O, March 25)

“Addison said police can’t force samples from anyone they believe to be implicated in a crime. But he said that, in this situation, there was ‘really, really strong physical evidence.’” (Herald-Sun, March 25)

“We’re not saying that all 46 were involved. But we do know that some of the players inside that house on that evening knew what transpired and we need them to come forward.” (ABC, March 26)

“Although we have received many calls expressing concerns and anger about this incident, we have not received any calls which will allow us to assist in resolving this case. We are extending our plea for information and help to our Duke family, who are also part of our community.” (WRAL, March 28)

Each of these statements was at best misleading and at worst outright false. In the first five, Addison was serving as interim Durham Police Department spokesperson. There is no record of his being disciplined in any way for his false or midleading public statements. I suspect, however, that his remarks will come up again in post-case civil litigation, especially given the remarkable coincidence that his inaccuracy-laden barrage of statements began on the very day that Mike Nifong improperly assumed command of the police investigation.

Addison’s sixth statement came in the context of his position as coordinator of Durham CrimeStoppers, a technically autonomous organization that offers payments to witnesses who come forward with evidence of a crime. Last spring, CrimeStoppers issued a “wanted” poster declaring,

The Duke Lacrosse Team was hosting a party at the residence. The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.

On April 11, the organization issued a news release twice amending the poster’s wording. As the N&Onoted,

Tuesday at 11:16 a.m., Addison e-mailed the same release, but modified the first sentence to read: “The victim alleges that she was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed.” The [] sentence calling the incident a “horrific crime” was deleted.

Eighteen minutes later, an amended CrimeStoppers release was sent. The only change was that “the victim” was now referred to as “the complainant.”

There the story might have ended but for civil liberties attorney Alex Charns, who has demanded, thus far unsuccessfully, that the DPD publicly explain how the initial inflammatory release was created; and especially for blogger John in Carolina, who has spent several months investigating the matter. Incredibly, public spokesperson Addison has refused to speak with JinC. Only in Durham does a public spokesperson refuse to talk to the public.

Addison’s DPD supervisor, Major Lee Russ, told JinC that the DPD had nothing to do with the “wanted” poster. Instead, he claimed, Addison was given carte blanche authority from the CrimeStoppers board to issue “wanted” posters. And who was on the board? Russ refused to say, adding that he knew neither where nor when the board met. Durham CrimeStoppers has no independent website (it instead has a non-descript page hosted on the DPD site, calling into question the degree of its autonomy) that might list its board members.

After some digging, however, JinC discovered fairly intimate connections between CrimeStoppers and two key Duke officials. In the listing for the Duke Alumni Association board of directors, Sue Wasiolek, dean of student life, is listed as “involved in the boards of Durham CrimeStoppers.” And, as of February 2006, Bob Dean, director of the Duke University Police Department, was listed as chairman of Durham CrimeStoppers.

Moroever, the organization has an in-depth link to Duke through longtime Duke Police Director Paul Dumas—who, one Duke insider told JinC, “was always ‘recruiting’ for CS. He worked with them for years.” Another added, “Duke is a dominant presence within Durham CS. I don’t want to go as far as saying Duke controls it, but it’s been at least close to that for many years.” Indeed, Duke Police officers briefly ran the organization in 2005, when Addison was away for professional obligations.

On March 25, Dean Sue was one of four Duke administrators who met with the lacrosse parents to explain the administration’s rationale for the last-second cancellation of the Georgetown game. Her own behavior, in turn, generated pressing questions from the parents. She had, after all, set the stage for the captains to meet with Wes Convington, the lawyer whose basic approach to the case appeared to be ensuring that no Duke students hired attorneys. At the meeting, she defended her actions by preposterously asserting that she—an attorney herself (NCCU J.D.)—would have no problem with having her son be interrogated, without counsel present, by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb.

At the time, Wasiolek told the parents that her sources said the accuser wasn’t credible—that the accuser’s story kept changing, the Durham Police knew she was a prostitute. It seemed hard to believe that a dean of student life would have such contacts. But a CrimeStoppers advisory board member certainly would.

Wasiolek’s dual Duke/CrimeStoppers role reveals an obvious conflict of interest: what happens when the interests of CrimeStoppers and Duke students do not coincide?

In this instance, it clearly is in the interests of Duke students that Addison and the CrimeStoppers advisory board explain why the organization publicized misleading or outright false information. But it is just as clearly in the interests of Wasiolek, others on CrimeStoppers’ advisory board and Addison to maintain its “wall of silence” regarding the production and dissemination of the “wanted” poster.

Similarly, on March 25, it was clearly in the interests of Duke students to retain counsel, so they couldn’t be railroaded by Sgt. Gottlieb. But it was just as clearly in the interests of CrimeStoppers’ advisory board to have the students speak to Gottlieb without attorneys present.

When she involved Covington and seemed resistant to the idea of the players hiring attorneys, was Wasiolek guided more by her role as Duke dean of student life or by her status as a member of CrimeStoppers’ advisory board? And with regard to the “wanted” poster: What did Dean Sue know, when did she know it, and why has neither she, nor Dean, nor any other Duke official involved in CrimeStoppers arranged for Addison to come clean about his springtime actions?

[A commenter asked for the distinction between the Addison "wanted" poster and the potbangers' "vigilante" poster; JinC explains here.]

55 comments:

Anonymous
said...

One has to suppose that Coman and Winstead agreed to take over the “case” after thinking things through. Why would anyone take on such a dog of case, with the attendant risk of catching fleas? My guess is that they see a chance to gain significant political capital and perhaps to rehabilitate some past blemishes, minimizing personal political liabilities. In addition, they are cleaning up a monumental mess and can expect to be remembered, in due time, by those many who benefit by this. At some point, there is the very real prospect of currying favor with nearly everyone – by being the ones to expose Nofing and by turning him into a firebreak. They also have the chance of being all over TV, showing leadership and wisdom, taking the high road by speaking in favor of healing, soothing all those hurt by this travesty, looking leader-like, and so on.

The word on the street in Durham has been that this whole thing is a crock for at least ten months now. If they can successfully pin everything on Nofing in such a way to provide an out for those many others who are in awkward and untenable positions, turning the mob rage against things Duke into muted anger at the acts of a lone rogue prosecutor, they win points with multiple constituencies. They have plenty of leverage on Nofing; they are likely to agree not to pursue criminal charges, in exchange for him not implicating others. Expect a written non-apology, Nofing to find his inner victim (couldn’t see for concern for the alleged victim, pressure of all the media attention, misunderstandings, etc.), and then to crawl under a rock and disappear – at least until the civil proceedings. I really think most of the Durham electorate at this point would be OK with dropping charges against the Duke three, with prejudice – provided Nofing is offered up as cover. Since his intentions were in the right place, letting him off without criminal charges will be OK. Besides, Coman and Winstead are never likely to need to win a primary in Durham. Of course, there will be the obligatory castigation of the team for holding a Spring Break party with (gasp!) drinking, etc.

The bar proceedings and the May hearing provide opportunity to begin turning sentiment so as to ensure Nofing guilt means everyone else’s innocence. It is just a matter of timing, getting everyone reading from the same script, etc. at this point. Whereas there were many who were ready to lynch most Duke students last Spring, by the time this plays out, expect just a little fizzle, mostly studied silence. My bet: everything except civil actions end over the summer.

In my view this is drop the charges day. This is true for a number of reasons:

1. Duke students are on Spring break so they would not be subject to any retaliation if things were to get ugly in Durham.

2. The AG's office has had the case long enough, long enough in fact as Professor Anderson has shown they are starting to get some of the tarnish on them. No one can accuse them of rushing to drop the charges.

3. Many in NC are focusing on brackets, so fewer will be paying attention to this case.

It is past time and today is the day to drop it.

As for Professor Johnson's post today, this conflict of interest seems to me to enhance Duke's liability.

You say, "it was just as clearly in the interests of CrimeStoppers’ advisory board to have the students speak to Gottlieb without attorneys present." To make that statement, you have to assume that crimes are more likely to be solved if potential suspects and witnesses do not retain counsel. I am not at all sure that is true, but maybe it is.

In any event, I would hope that everyone involved with Crimestoppers agrees that the right to counsel is a hallmark of our society--something for which all citizens should be thankful and not something that needs to be sidestepped in the interests of catching and convicting bad guys. After all, the idea is that the American system will, in the long run, maximize justice--convicting bad guys and not convicting good guys. This case by itself shows the appropriateness of the right to counsel in achieving justice. Therefore, since justice is what Crimestoppers should want, it was not "clearly in the interests of CrimeStoppers’ advisory board to have the students speak to Gottlieb without attorneys present."

All of that said, I agree that it is probably true that the perception of most folks involved with Crimestoppers is that their interests are best served if potential suspects and witnesses speak to police without the benefit of a lawyer.

You seem to have struck a bullseye. I concur 100% with your assessment. It is shrewd, realistic and very probably correct. It's a bit depressing, but that too makes it ring true. I think you've given us the next chapter to this sordid affair.

Amazing how this dirty business just keeps claiming victims. EVERYONE comes off looking bad (except for KC himself!) It stinks from top to bottom. What lessons does it offer about politics in American today? (Since it is and always was about politics, not justice.)

I also tend to agree with 12:20am's assessment, but with the following caveat; Nifong can't be expected to bear the full brunt without getting something in return. He wasn't operating in a vacuum and is in a position take others down with him. It's an incestuous system through and through - with the perfectly clueless gang of "88" the distracting, convenient side-show.

I mentioned this before, that the likely outcome doesn't bode well for the accused, that is, having the charges dropped under the confident doctrine of "Well, 's-o-m-e-t-h-i-n-g' happened!"

Aside from all the apparent complicity in this case, it's hard to imagine the three young men fully regaining their reputations should Broadhead remain in place.

Being personally acquainted with "Dean Sue", I can't say that I am surprised at all. Her motives are deeply driven by a consciousness about the world that is utterly detached from reason or compassion. She is a woman who patronizes only fear.

Well bloggers - Check the recent post by AG Rud - The Perfect Storm. Says he "probably did not give much thought to his posting," Did Tom Crowley contact him? Also mentions how another Perdue Professor told him about "tarnished reputations." Thanks for having the courage to admit error.

I am not an attorney but I have a nose for certain things. What I smell is this: The connection between Dean Sue and the outrageously libelous and hyper-damaging statements of Addison is plenty good enough for civil law. This might be the best "smoking gun" we have seen so far. Maybe "money shot" is a better term.

I am sure the general public would view hiring an attorney necessary only if the person was guilty. However in my 68 years of life seeking legal advice in mandatory in any decision making process particularly dealing with others who are also represented by attorneys or law enforcement. The days of blind trust in others is gone. I have no longer have faith in the honesty and integrity of the human race.

This is a most important post on your part, and I also comment John-in-Carolina for his work on this sordid affair. As I have posted elsewhere, I believe David Addison is criminally involved in this one, and now we see that "Dean Sue" herself chose to take part in framing some people for a crime that she knew was not committed.

Take her "not credible" remarks to the players and compare them to what Crimestoppers (or, should we say "Crime Starters"?) said. If her involvement is what you and John say it is (and I don't doubt either of you), then we have a conspiracy to deny the civil rights to people.

Understand that people in the past have gone to prison for what I just previously wrote. Look at the "conspiracy" cases in civil rights matters over the years, and you will find a number of situations in which people who committed civil rights violations or conspired with others to do so were sentenced to hard prison terms.

We are not dealing simply with "bad judgment" or "rush to judgment" or "overzealousness." These people -- from Addison to "Dean Sue" -- knew from the start that these were false charges, but elected to pursue the matter, anyway. I believe that we must treat this as a very wide-ranging action of criminality on behalf of these characters.

Most likely, there will be no criminal charges, as the feds have no interest in doing their duties (they are too busy reading our mail and tapping our phones), and we know that the State of North Carolina is not going after anyone. Thus, it will fall onto the civil portion of the legal system to deal with this muck.

Again, kudos to K.C. and JinC for some hard-nosed, relentless footwork!

The poster began by noting that "The Duke Lacrosse Team was hosting a party at the residence"- a harmless, if inaccurate, social announcement. It's kind of sweet, really.

Then the wanted poster did mention that a victim (who it did not specifically say was at the LAX party) was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed.

Well? Someone who is sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed is a victim -- correct?

Besides, just because the sodomy-rape-etc. claim is in the very next sentence after mentioning the LAX party, why are people connecting the two? This is just like the error of thinking that the listening statement had anything to do with the LAX case. It is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

And if such a thing did happen, wouldn't it be horrific? It certainly would.

And couldn't a sudden, mass realization that such things do happen send shock waves throughout any community?

Hopefully it is now clear that the Crimestoppers wanted poster did not imply that anything untoward happened at the LAX party.

[In another posting we will see how the "Castrate" sign actually conveyed goodwill.]

If this is correct, then the University's complicity in perpetuating the fraud is undeniable and there are going to be HUGE lawsuits (and rightfully so). I'm becoming more convinced that the Academic structure at Duke is so poisoned that it has to be completely dismantled and re-constructed (and hopefully many other similar institutions like Vanderbilt are paying close attention so they can avoid the same fate- a good first step is ridding themselves of Houston Baker).

Bill Anderson said -- "...now we see that "Dean Sue" herself chose to take part in framing some people for a crime that she knew was not committed."

Be careful here! No one has presented any evidence that Dean Sue framed anyone. She had some vague relationship to Durham Crimestoppers, and she expressed opinions to parents that proved to be correct.

Be careful here! No one has presented any evidence that Dean Sue framed anyone. She had some vague relationship to Durham Crimestoppers, and she expressed opinions to parents that proved to be correct.

Mar 12, 2007 8:54:00 AM

You are partially correct. We have no proof that she actively "framed" anyone. However, we do know that her involvement with CrimeStoppers was more than tangential. Dean Sue was quite influential in CrimeStoppers and I have no doubt that she either was involved or had some knowledge of the infamous poster before it was released.

Keep in mind that this poster was part of a huge propaganda effort to smear the LAX players as rapists or people covering for rapes. From the N&O (which printed and distributed copies of the poster) to Nifong to the activities of Sam Hummel and other Duke employees, this was a huge smear based on lies.

Furthermore, as I commented months ago in one of my articles, Dean Sue's attempt to get students to meet Gottlieb without counsel truly is frightening. We now know that at that time, Gottlieb already had become part of an effort to frame someone for a crime he knew had not been committed.

My question is this: What did "Dean Sue" know, and when did she know it?

NOW COMES the Duke University Office of Students Affairs in the matter of their involvement in Durham, NC CrimeStoppers; the one hundred (100) rapes reported and one (1) conviction during the year 2006 in Durham and the near absence of serious crime on the campus of Duke University according to the US Department of Justice and... the Duke University crime report.

Parents of Duke students have done a good job of raising non-violent kids which is no surprise, yet the leadership of Duke is involved with criminal activities 'in the belly of the beast' of Durham. Why is that?

Just how far will people go to create a culture of victimized women as the primary strategy to bring down sports and fraternity life at Duke?

Lets consider a Safe Haven for members of Duke fraternities and athletes on the campus of Duke as part of the Campus Cultural Initiative (CCI).

I agree with 8:54--today's post raises interesting issues, but I'd be slow to get on the Dean Sue conspiracy bandwagon. At best, the post provides a plausible speculative interpretation for the motives behind her actions (which themselves don't conclusively demonstrate any conspiracy or even a belief that the alleged crime occurred and was in need of solving).

Another possible scenario (one I think is equally or more plausible) is that, like a good bureaucrat, she saw her primary goal as protecting the interests of the university as an institution. She might have concluded that setting up the meeting between unrepresented (or under-represented by one attorney) players and Gottlieb could be a win-win situation for the institution: if the accuser really was not credible and the police believed the players , the whole thing might go away quickly, with a relative minimum of bad publicity--involvement of individual counsel would stretch things out which, from an institutional point of view, might be seen as a negative.

If, on the other hand, it turned out that an assault had actually occurred, the meeting might result in a speedier resolution of the case (because, without individual representation, players might blurt out information that would help police identify the actual perpetrators)--which, while not a great outcome for Duke, would probably be the best it could hope for if there had actually been a crime committed, because again, it would get the incident over and out of the papers sooner.

The irony is that cancelling the meeting in order to get their own attorneys did, in fact, hurt the players in the public eye: it was this action, perfectly reasonable and appropriate from the point of view of the players, that police, prosecutor, protestors and commentators seized on to accuse the players of noncooperation and a "wall of silence." If players had contacted their parents and gotten their own attorneys earlier, perhaps this negative impression could have been avoided. Thus Dean Sue's actions, in the end, may well have extended the case rather than making it go away quickly.

Based upon corporate history, if an organization is found culpable then the board of directors can be sued as well as the organization. They are responsible for the supervision of that organization. That's the reason for Director's insurance. Any Duke people are on the hook, period, and the conflict of interest certainly raises the spectre of complicity with the Duke administration as a whole. There is no "Chinese Wall" protection evident here.

This statement is correct; Duke, at a minimum, (what we heard/saw) through the Gang of 88 and the administrations in-action, encouraged a lynching, castration, and complete disregard for the Constitution.

Besides, why would they worry about indictments, they knew the Durham process is stacked and corrupt.

If all of this is true which it seems quite obvious to be, Dean Sue needs to be terminated ASAP and has some serious explaining to do. I would think this leaves Duke even more open to civil suits in addition to the obvious civil suits that will be coming against Durham.

Anon at 1:19 -- the crimestoppers wanted poster and Addison's comments in an official capacity made it clear that crimestoppers had already made up its mind who was guilty. Case closed. Take the comments of Anon at 7:16 to heart. Too often the criminal justice system makes up its mind who is guilty and then works to prove it. Truth? Solve the crime? Dream on.

One of the important outcomes of this case has been to expose the extent to which the soft side of academia and school administrations have been infested by those who exploit class/race/gender for a living. And while this is bad enough of itself, the lax case has also clearly illustrated how these same people negatively impact the policies and behavior of the institutions and the lives of their students (and other professional staff) in a myriad of ways. I do not believe Duke is unique in this regard; and it may not, as unbelieveable as this sounds, even be among the worst offenders.

In addition, Nifong, the Black "victim," sympathetic local and national "journalists," the NAACP, incompetent police, the 88 gang, Brodhead, Dem politicians, have each so perfectly filled a stereotypical modern societal role that we might be watching a badly written prime-time soap, except that real, innocent people are caught up in the noir play. Those of course are the lax players, who were conscripted to fill the "evil white male" role in this disgusting and repetitious melodrama.

In a fair and just world, this noxious affair would end with a purge of true offenders to be replaced by competent, conscientious individuals dedicated to preventing further such incidents. In the real world, sad to say, that isn't going to happen. Political butt-covering, aided by the media, will begin at the state level and extend its effects downward. A gutless set of trustees will leave a spineless administration in place to whitewash behavior of the 88 "professors." Absolutely nothing in the way of just desserts will accrue to the Governor, Brodhead, Durham police department, media pundits, race enablers, the "victim," or any major contributors other than Nifong.

Look around in a few years and expect to see business as usual in the Duke and North Carolina victim industry. These conditions have been insidiously established over the past 40 or 50 years and have numerous contributors and supporters. Any return to sanity will be slow and painful.

Here are some practical steps I think Duke could take to limit exposure and minimize the odds of trouble, going forward:

- In developing Central Campus, do everything possible to create a buffer between the campus and the community and ensure there is sufficient housing so that all undergrads may live on campus for all four years, also seek to remove motivations for off-campus social functions by providing space for these to be held on campus; make campus security a priority in planning, crime coming from off-campus is a danger (rather than the other way around!) - Around East Campus, use the houses that were purchased (at hugely inflated prices, an example of extortion by the community) to create a similar buffer, to the extent possible; this is probably best accomplished by leasing these long-term to organizations (such as the Church-affiliated student centers that tend to exist around many campuses) that want to have a presence near campus, rather than using these for housing; if these are sold, there need to be permanent restrictive covenants - Be very grateful for Duke Forest around West Campus - Recognize the dangers in doing “Deals with the Devil”, understand where there is corruption and malfeasance, and become more aware generally (G88, local government, DPD, activists, press) - Do something to make this statement become false: “For all that Duke does for the community and in the name of diversity, the perception is as if the exact opposite were true”; try to at least get some credit as you have not done well in the area of PR, even considering how much better things could be had events of the past year been better handled - Get some more diversity of thought in the G88-heavy departments; if you are going to have an African and African American Studies department, how about focusing more on constructive ways forward or actually understanding reality, rather than trying to construct some sort of delusional system of beliefs that actually contributes to the problem? How about helping to understand and solve problems, rather than focusing almost exclusively on African Americans as victims? Why does diversity have to be only skin-deep? - Recognize the things athletics have brought to Duke and the goodwill and positive image that athletics has generated, support the athletes as there is pressure involved in balancing athletics and academics, being watched and held to high standards at all times, and being the objects of resentment - Learn from this experience! If you happen to be an administrator, consider yourself lucky to still be employed and try to become much wiser from this. Turn this to good. Realize that you may be predisposed to drawing incorrect conclusions and very carefully consider the criticisms that you have heard -- in fact, you should actively seek this out, particuarly since one of the committes was not one designed to undertake this sort of self-examination.

There is any easy way to determine who the board members are, who the webmaster is, who drafted the documents, etc. The athletes sue them for Libel and Slander, serve subpeonas for interrogatories, production of all corporate records and take depos. Very simple. These a**clowns will cough up the data quite quickly. Being a 501(c)3 does not make it immune to lawsuits and/or damages from their actions.

Thus Dean Sue's actions, in the end, may well have extended the case rather than making it go away quickly.

Mar 12, 2007 9:21:00 AM

I think it is safe to say in hindsight that Mark Gottlieb had no intention of "finding the truth" when the meeting was called. Gottlieb already knew there had been no rape, but also had decided that he was going to help frame someone. The purpose of the meeting, then, would have been threefold:

1. To figure who might be the easiest or best person to frame;2. To make the players "relax" and think that the police really were conducting a serious investigation, but that their cooperation would help exonerate them;3. To probe for a weak spot to see which student or students might be so intimidated that they might "come forward" to tell police what they wanted to hear.

Now, by telling the players not to tell their parents or get lawyers, it seems to me that Dean Sue was placing them in grave danger, given the mentality of the Durham police at that time. What she knew and when she knew it would be very important.

Either she was part of a criminal conspiracy, or she was thoroughly duped by Gottlieb. Obviously, I do not know the answer, but I do know that she is closely connected to an organization that then openly declared the lacrosse players to be rapists. What did she know, and when did she know it?

as a lifelong belly liberal I can sum up the 2 opposing sides rather easily.Mike Nifong,the Durham PD and The Group of 88 want these 3 Duke LAX players punished for a crime they didn't commit(and which it appears never happened).All we(who support justice)want is for Mike Nifong,the Durham PD,The Group of 88 and the accuser to be held accountable for the things they said and did.everything else is just rhetoric.

One of my kids got her undergraduate degree from James Madison University. No one out side of the students and parents heard of the school until they reached the final four in 1982. We were traveling through England in June of that year and everyone interested in sport knew JMU. Duke owes a lot of its name recognization via the sports teams.

At the meeting, she defended her actions by preposterously asserting that she—an attorney herself (NCCU J.D.)—would have no problem with having her son be interrogated, without counsel present, by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb.

A lawyer really said this? Can a lawyer ethically tell crime suspects this, even (or especially) if they are not her clients? If she is really a lawyer and this really happened, then why hasn't the N.C. Bar stepped in?

Jeff Hall - remember - she is an NCCU grad - were it not for that diploma mill, we would not be blighted with so many also ran rejects from real(tm) law schools around here. Look into it - talk about a group closing ranks around its own - hoowee!

I remember reading that Coman is retiring soon. He must be counting the days. I think Gottleib is small time and has not been heard from in months. He may have had enough clout to get off the case. Its Nifong - maybe with some higher up helping - maybe not. Did Sam use the University zerox machine for the posters. KC and Bill A.. Is there a culture of privilege and violence out there at the colleges? Aside from Thugniggaintellual Neal that is.

Jeff Hall said... At the meeting, she defended her actions by preposterously asserting that she—an attorney herself (NCCU J.D.)—would have no problem with having her son be interrogated, without counsel present, by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb. A lawyer really said this? Can a lawyer ethically tell crime suspects this, even (or especially) if they are not her clients? If she is really a lawyer and this really happened, then why hasn't the N.C. Bar stepped in? Mar 12, 2007 4:36:00 PM

I appreciate your research and insight. I make it a point to read your blog and have learned a great deal about the case from the information you provide. I appreciate the quality of your work and I agree with most of your conclusions.

However, time and again you state Dean Sue told the players " not to tell their parents." I cannot find any primary source to confirm that she actually did so. Noone who heard her say this or any other documentation. If true, I would imagine the parents would be outraged and would be crawling all over the university for her dismissal. Yet, I hear nothing about this. Could you be mistaken on this point? Thanks

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review